Email this article to a friend

It is reasonably easy to engineer the overthrow of a government. It is far harder, however, to know the long-term impact that that action will have.

On domestic policy—taxation, healthcare, the environment, education, criminal justice, immigration and so forth—there are major differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. On foreign policy, not so much. In fact, a number of observers have correctly pointed out that, to a very great degree, we have a “one-party foreign policy.” As a result, there is almost no debate about the basic premises underlying our long-term foreign policy positions. In a complicated and volatile world, this is not a good thing.

Several months ago, Democrats, with virtually no opposition, gave President Trump every nickel that he wanted in increased defense spending. At a time when our infrastructure is crumbling, when public schools lack the resources to provide a quality education for our kids, when 30 million people have no health insurance, there were very few Democrats opposed to Republican efforts to increase military spending by $165 billion over two years.

Democrats, for good reason, vehemently oppose almost everything Trump proposes, but when he asks for a huge increase in military spending, there are almost no voices in dissent. Why is that? Do we really have to spend more on the military than the next 10 nations combined—most of which are our allies? Why do we dramatically increase funding for the military when the Department of Defense remains the only major government agency not to have undertaken a comprehensive audit? Why is there so little discussion about the billions in waste, fraud and cost overruns at the Pentagon?

Here's a truth that you don't often hear about in the newspapers, on television or in the halls of Congress. But it’s a truth we must face. Far too often, American intervention and the use of American military power have produced unintended consequences that have caused incalculable harm. Yes, it is reasonably easy to engineer the overthrow of a government. It is far harder, however, to know the long-term impact that that action will have.

Let me give you some examples: In 1953, the United States, on behalf of Western oil interests, supported the overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh, Iran’s elected prime minister, and the reinstallation of the shah of Iran, who led a corrupt, brutal and unpopular government. In 1979, the shah was overthrown by revolutionaries led by Ayatollah Khomeini, and the Islamic Republic of Iran was created. What would Iran look like today if its democratic government had not been overthrown?

In 1973, the United States supported the coup against the democratically elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende, which was led by General Augusto Pinochet. The result was almost 20 years of authoritarian military rule and the disappearance and torture of thousands of Chileans—and the intensification of anti-Americanism in Latin America. Elsewhere in Latin America, the logic of the Cold War led the United States to support murderous regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala, which resulted in brutal and long-lasting civil wars.

In Vietnam, based on a discredited “domino theory,” the United States replaced the French in intervening in a civil war, which resulted in the deaths of millions of Vietnamese in support of a corrupt, repressive South Vietnamese government. We must never forget that more than 58,000 Americans also died in that war.

More recently, in Iraq, based on a similarly mistaken analysis of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s regime, the United States invaded and occupied a country in the heart of the Middle East. In doing so, we unleashed forces across the region and the world that we’ll be dealing with for decades to come.

Unfortunately, today we still have examples of the United States supporting policies that I believe will come back to haunt us. One is the ongoing Saudi war in Yemen.

On March 20, 2018, Republican Sen. Mike Lee, Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy and I brought a resolution to the floor to end U.S. involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen and to change the nature of how Congress does foreign and military policy.

We introduced this resolution for two reasons. First, the war in Yemen has been a humanitarian disaster for the people of that impoverished country. Some 10,000 civilians have been killed, 40,000 more have been wounded and more than 3 million have been displaced. In November 2017, the United Nations emergency relief coordinator said that Yemen was on the brink of “the largest famine the world has seen for many decades.” Fifteen million people lack access to clean water and sanitation because water treatment plants have been destroyed. More than 20 million people in Yemen, over two-thirds of the population, need some kind of humanitarian support, with nearly 10 million in acute need of assistance. More than 1 million suspected cholera cases have been reported, representing potentially the worst cholera outbreak in world history. That is reason enough to end U.S. military support for what Saudi Arabia is doing in the civil war in Yemen.

But the second reason is even more important. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution is very clear. It is Congress that has the responsibility to declare war and send our armed forces into harm’s way. Over the years, Congress has, under both Democratic and Republican leadership, abdicated that responsibility and given it over to the president. The time is long overdue for Congress to regain control over this vitally important process, as the founding fathers mandated.

The issue of which body has control over warmaking and when we send troops into battle is not some abstract intellectual debate. It is of enormous consequence. Anyone who understands the history of American foreign policy knows that, over the years, many of our wars and military interventions were based on lies and deceptions coming from the White House. The two most significant foreign policy blunders in the modern history of the United States, the war in Iraq and the war in Vietnam, occurred when Congress sat back and allowed two administrations, one Republican and one Democratic, to lie to the American people as they led us into unnecessary conflicts with horrific unintended consequences. We must never allow that to happen again. And that’s what our resolution was about.

On March 20, 2003, the war in Iraq, which I had strongly opposed, began, and the bombs started falling on Baghdad. Today, it is widely acknowledged that the Iraq War was a tragedy of enormous magnitude, and that our entry into that war was based on a series of falsehoods. Despite what the Bush administration said, Iraq had no role in the 9/11 attacks, and it did not possess weapons of mass destruction that threatened the United States. As we now know, that war created a cascade of instability around the region that we are still dealing with today, in Syria and elsewhere, and will be for many years to come.

Indeed, had it not been for the Iraq War, the Islamic State would almost certainly not exist. The war deepened hostilities between Sunni and Shiite communities in Iraq and elsewhere. It exacerbated a regional struggle for power between Saudi Arabia and Iran and their proxies in places like Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, and it undermined American diplomatic efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

That war was created by a Republican administration. Now, let me tell you about a Democratic administration, and an earlier conflict that began on similarly false pretenses. In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson cited an attack on a U.S. ship in the Gulf of Tonkin as a pretext for escalating the U.S. intervention in Vietnam. We now know from declassified recordings that Johnson himself doubted that the U.S.S. Maddox had come under fire on Aug. 4, 1964, but he still used that alleged attack to push for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which authorized him to escalate U.S. military involvement in Vietnam. Johnson’s administration consistently misled both Congress and the American people into that war, just as the Bush administration misled us into the war in Iraq.

The lesson that must be learned from all of this is that foreign policy disasters occur when presidents refuse to tell their people the truth, and when Congress abdicates its constitutional responsibility to get that truth. Not surprisingly, the Trump administration, the Republican congressional leadership, and the military establishment strongly opposed our resolution. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell held a classified hearing with military and intelligence leaders to gain support to defeat us, and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis spoke at both the Republican and Democratic Senate Caucuses on the day of the vote to support the status quo.

Nonetheless, the bill passed the Senate on Dec. 13, 2018, with support from all 49 Democrats, as well as seven Republicans. It is expected to be taken up for a vote by the Democratic-controlled House this year.

Adapted with permission from Where We Go from Here: Two Years in the Resistance (Houghton Mifflin, 2018). All rights reserved.

Help In These Times Continue Publishing

Progressive journalism is needed now more than ever, and In These Times needs you.

Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006 after serving 16 years in the House of Representatives. He is the longest serving independent member of Congress in American history. Elected Mayor of Burlington, Vt., by 10 votes in 1981, he served four terms. Before his 1990 election as Vermont's at-large member in Congress, Sanders lectured at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and at Hamilton College in upstate New York. Read more at his website.

The same vest she had to wear when she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia?!? Don't invest in nonsense when facts are at hand.

Link please.

Posted by ronbo on 2019-01-22 07:36:26

Please link. I think you might be a bit upset that your world view is shattered.

ACA has no cost controls and is government mandated profits for the richest corporations in the world leaving 14,000,000 without healthcare. Each Americans pay 2x as much to get healthcare rated at #23.

Do those 14,000,000 support ACA? Do they demand the most expensive (by far) corporate mandates?

Posted by ronbo on 2019-01-22 07:08:36

so have you looked up the court case yet? No.. look who's got an agenda little one.All in all I dont give two sh*ts as im canadian and will gladly watching ring side while the usa destroys itself.Who'd ya vote for for in 1992? Ross Perot was right about the 'giant sucking sound'*blocked*

Posted by Pacemaker4 on 2019-01-21 19:46:50

You need a tin hat on your head.

Posted by Otohara on 2019-01-21 19:13:37

Because they knew the 2008 debt crisis was better to blame a democrat black man for? Thats the best explanation I think.

Posted by Pacemaker4 on 2019-01-21 18:27:46

Why didn't the DNC just pick Hillary in 2008 when the difference was 48,000 vs 4 million? Why on earth would they let an unknown Senator & community organizer be the candidate if they can just pick our candidate?

Posted by Otohara on 2019-01-21 18:21:51

Read up on the court case where the DNC states they have no obligation to ensure its conducted fairly. IE they can just pick the candidate they want regardless of any votes.

Posted by Pacemaker4 on 2019-01-21 18:07:39

Way to play down the death threats she faced during that ugly time.

80% of my state voted against a Conyers/Sanders type MFA amendment two years ago. Polls say they want it, but then the details come out and the push back begins.

Medicare in states that had funding along with the ACA was working pretty good, but the far left is never satisfied and Trump was the result.

Posted by Otohara on 2019-01-21 17:34:59

You tell us why Sanders didn't fight over a primary you all thought was rigged?

Is it perhaps he said it wasn't rigged? I absolutely love how he complained about primaries not being opened, but says nothing about caucuses being worse than closed primaries.

Posted by Otohara on 2019-01-21 17:24:14

As you may recall, it was the single airing of the "Harry and Louise" ad that defeated her "bullet proof vest". When the healthcare corporations barked, Hillary and Bill jumped.

Government-directed corporate subsidies for the richest corporations were mandated in ACA. Do you recall who decreed that "Single-payer will never, ever come to pass"? That's not really a rallying cry when over 87% of your supporters want single-payer solution to our healthcare crisis.

Posted by ronbo on 2019-01-21 17:21:21

And when did it become so popular that 87% of Democrats support the policy? Was it 2003? 2004? 2005? 2006?

I once had the idea of getting a haircut and now everyone gets 'em. They owe me! s/

Conyers is happy to share good policy, why would anyone object to having their policy pushed forward?

Posted by ronbo on 2019-01-21 17:12:59

Okay - but you forgot someone her name is Hillary and she had to wear a bullet proof vest while trying to negotiate healthcare for all.

Posted by Otohara on 2019-01-21 17:12:43

Sanders popularized Conyers idea, which was previously Roosevelts which was appropriated by him from many, many people.

Posted by ronbo on 2019-01-21 17:08:06

How is pointing out that Sanders stole Conyers idea?

Posted by Otohara on 2019-01-21 16:54:46

Are you aware that Rep. John Conyers put MFA up for votes every year since 2003?Medicaid for those who need it makes more sense

Posted by Otohara on 2019-01-21 16:53:06

Syria is a mess and that 20 year was in another Asian country shows a total flop. Our DOD spends as much money as the next 25 countries DOD. Totality off the wall in spending. We need to take control of our lawmakers and stop the so called influence of friendly outside gangs who have more power than the people who elected them. Our economy can not take it.

Posted by 6384601 on 2019-01-21 15:21:55

Thx for being reasonable. While I disagree with some socialist ideals, I do agree with you that ad hominem attacks are common on all sides. To be honest, I'm not so sure why the two party system is so prevalent. It only serves to divide the country further in my opinion.

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-19 12:00:29

I simply thanked Inthesetimes for allowing Sanders to present his policy position.

This isn't about "criticising people simply for their point of view". it's about truth and recognizing patterns of deception. Please note that the attacks are FAR more often against the man than his policies. It's an ad hominem, a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

I apologize for using "buzzard"; but, it has more impact than saying "ad hominem".

Posted by ronbo on 2019-01-19 11:25:03

Sorry for upsetting by accurately identifying that Sen. Sanders was the only candidate in 2018 who called for Medicare for all.

The truth must be spoken. Otherwise, we will just be tRumping the news allowing false information to pass.

Posted by ronbo on 2019-01-19 10:43:46

Thank you for agreeing---Biological warfare is the same as nuclear--Everything is going to let loose--there will not be enough buzzards to devour the dead--then they will be rotted away---but there will be a few who will start the pain of building a new world

Posted by 12213 on 2019-01-19 10:19:32

OK, Republicans - what is it going to be - raising tax rates or cut the military spending? Thanks to the last tax cut for the rich and corporate, we have a current deficit of about a trillion dollars. How are we going to balance our income/spending? No-on will lend us the money, and the dollar printing press needs to cool-off for awhile. The working class is tapped out with debt. What are you going to do - tax food stamps and rent help? So, it is either tax the rich to get the money or cut the enormous spending upon the military. The Tooth Fairy is dead, and you Republicans now face the hard choice of reaming one of your key beneficiaries - the filthy rich or the warmongers

Posted by richardvajs on 2019-01-19 10:15:44

True! Very true. We're living in dangerous times and we might fall into another dark age any moment now.

Also, think about biological warfare too. It'd be just way too easy.

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-19 09:56:29

Please, stop going off of that argument and word. It's making me cringe. You're just as loud as pacemaker4 and my responses to you are also making me just as loud. If you write controversial statements in a comment section here then you're the one asking for honest kickback.

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-19 09:55:19

???

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-19 09:54:08

Ha, saying he volunteered himself for ad hominem? Nice in-between the lines proofreading.

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-19 09:53:52

Hey, what if I called you a bad debater? With your use of strawman misrepresentations like "buzzard" and loaded words in your arguments, I'd probably mistake you for a propaganda-delivering bot trying to establish your own echo chamber on this site. Stop criticising people simply for their point of view and speech and start criticising their point of view

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-19 09:52:28

This article points to the TRUTH that Trump really follows an American Presidential Pattern of lying--- This follows from the days of George Washington who never told a lie; he just misrepresented the TRUTH. Another great lie being fed to the people--is that weapons can be built to intercept missiles carrying nuclear bombs, the missiles may be intercepted; but they will still explode in the air---millions of people will be destroyed by the fall out affecting the climateWe may need for the United Nations to call all nations that possess nuclear weapons to immediately-- have a mutual day of international mass destruction ---Millions would be destroyed but millions of grandchildren would survive----If we do not agree to destroy ourselves today---our grandchildren will be destroyed tomorrow---No nation today is going to give up their nuclear weapons---the only way to de-nuclear the world ,is now to use these weapons of mass destruction .The weapons are going to be used---the only issue is WHEN?

Posted by 12213 on 2019-01-19 08:33:32

No you wrote about Sanders not Coyner.

Why'd it take a year for him to decide to support it?

Posted by Pacemaker4 on 2019-01-17 12:23:39

That is what I wrote. Thank you.

Learn how maps are made; it will bring you a bit of enlightenment.

Posted by ronbo on 2019-01-17 11:47:46

"WE"? Is that a mouse in your pocket?

Things that go "on the map" exist prior to the map. Use logic.

Posted by ronbo on 2019-01-17 11:44:31

We know your opinion is factually wrong.

Posted by Pacemaker4 on 2019-01-17 11:39:08

I wrote "Sen. Sanders put "medicare-for-all" on the map."

Cities did exist before they were put "on the map". That's simple logic. Putting something on the map doesn't mean they invented it.

Think.

Posted by ronbo on 2019-01-17 11:24:59

moving the goal posts now that you realize your wrong.lmao.

Posted by Pacemaker4 on 2019-01-17 11:22:50

he might have made it the most popular idea in 2017.But 'putting on the map was all Coyner in 2003.

Posted by Pacemaker4 on 2019-01-17 11:22:09

You volunteered yourself. I didn't. I just made a prediction that you fulfilled. You attacked me for what YOU wrote.

I wrote "Sen. Sanders put "medicare-for-all" on the map."

Posted by ronbo on 2019-01-17 11:14:25

Which candidate in 2018 elevated and supported Medicare-for-all?

Posted by ronbo on 2019-01-17 11:07:05

ad hominem is the last refuge of the ignorant... sound familiar?

Posted by Pacemaker4 on 2019-01-17 11:04:40

Who said otherwise?

Arguing against your strawman looks crazy... or shall we call it Buzzardy?

Posted by ronbo on 2019-01-17 11:03:53

HR 676 was introduced in feb 2003.

Posted by Pacemaker4 on 2019-01-17 11:01:04

It was already on the map...he supported it in 2003. But you werent old enough to care back then little one.

Posted by Pacemaker4 on 2019-01-17 10:56:51

Work on your reading comprehension first. Sen. Sanders put "medicare-for-all" on the map in the last election.

Posted by ronbo on 2019-01-17 10:52:15

you know very little about National healthcare reform act. end of story.

Posted by Pacemaker4 on 2019-01-17 10:49:22

Neither your arrogance or insults will fix your errors, "little one".

I didn't call YOU a buzzard, I just predicted one would appear... and here you are! You volunteered and proved the accuracy of the prediction.

Thanks!

Posted by ronbo on 2019-01-17 10:46:02

Keep dodging little one. its a 15 yr old policy platform and bernie didnt think it up or jump on board at the start.

more ad hominem doesnt make your case any better.

Posted by Pacemaker4 on 2019-01-17 10:43:27

You volunteered and provided proof. And you continue to provide more proof.

Simmer down and think like a scientist.

Posted by ronbo on 2019-01-17 10:40:37

When was Bernie's bill? 2017 is the answer.

I showed your ignorance of your own history ... and that bernie hopped on board after a year passed.

Study your topic before you trying to make predictions. You look very foolish. Especially whe a Canadian corrects you so easily.Check the wiki page.. its fully layed out there. But you didnt.

Healthcare for all isnt a year old idea... its multi decade..but lemme guess you were like 3 then?

Posted by Pacemaker4 on 2019-01-17 10:35:27

You volunteered.

Posted by ronbo on 2019-01-17 10:11:15

When someone starts with ad hominem they already lost. So I also noticed you avoid answering any questions about Bernie, and just want a cookie for your so called prediction.Thats why the USA is such a state. Good luck with that.

Posted by Pacemaker4 on 2019-01-17 10:09:08

I predicted "buzzard"; you fulfilled the prophecy. Read the string. I didn't select you. You volunteered!

Posted by ronbo on 2019-01-17 09:54:43

ad hominem..last refuge of the factless. But that s all youve got I guess.Tell em why Bernie stumped for HRC? why no fight over the primary being rigged?

Posted by Pacemaker4 on 2019-01-17 08:17:44

And you flew right in to define the term with an actual example. "Now wait for the buzzards to arrive." Why do you think I predicted that with my first post? And here you are!

Posted by ronbo on 2019-01-17 07:59:11

same as Buzzard. look in the mirror speaking of reflections.

Posted by Pacemaker4 on 2019-01-16 12:49:03

“Little one”

Thank you for the arrogance. It reflects you.

Posted by ronbo on 2019-01-16 12:32:31

search Sanders voting record little one. He talks one way then votes the other.And some Americans gobble it up.

It took Sen Sanders to bring it to the attention of the masses. Prior to Sen. Sanders giving it prominence and focus, it went virtually unnoticed.

Do you not understand what "on the map" means? Read my words, not your propaganda manual for attacking the left. You are quite predictable... my post is proof. "Buzzard".

Posted by ronbo on 2019-01-16 09:33:44

you should do your homework next time

Posted by Pacemaker4 on 2019-01-16 07:56:36

hehe medicare for all is way older than that. HR 676 was introduced in feb 2003. He WAS NOT an original sponsor.took 14 months until he joined it in april 2004

Posted by Pacemaker4 on 2019-01-16 07:54:48

Hey Buzzard, are you aware that Sen. Sanders put "medicare-for-all" on the map?

Posted by ronbo on 2019-01-16 07:42:45

Bernie does not mention other important examples of destructive foreign policy including Israel/Palestine and the proxy wars in Nicaragua, Libya and Syria. STILL it's good to hear these words and call for control on foreign policy. Finally! This needs to be the START not the END of discussion and debate.

How can this site allow Sen. Sanders to speak for himself? The establishment media and echo chambers insist that someone on his staff may or may not have touched a woman's hair in a "sexual" way!!! Oh the horrors of what may or may not have happened!

Thank you for allowing Sen. Sanders to present a position. Now wait for the buzzards to arrive.